User talk:Shran/2007 Archive
For older discussions, see my archives here, here and here. Erasure of background material As per request, as I didn't want to take the time to cite entries only to see them erased like so many of my entries or additions of late, I have erased close to 100% of what I wrote in regards to the naming of ships.--Airtram3 13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC) :The only requests for citation that I saw were in cases where you said something "is" rather than "may be. For example: ::The ''Columbia is named after the 18th century American sloop which became the first ship of this country to circumnavigate the world and to discover the Columbia River. Both the Apollo Command Module Columbia, of Apollo 11, and the space shuttle ''Columbia'' are named in honor of this ship.'' :That had a citation request, because it is claiming something as fact and therefore putting words into the mouths of the production people and/or the people in universe. Something like that needs citation. On the contrary, if you leave it as "may have been" you are making reasonable speculation, but are not stating something as fact: ::This vessel may be named either for several sailing vessels named HMS ''Exeter and serving in Earth's British navy, or they may be named for the city Exeter in that country.'' :See the difference? --OuroborosCobra talk 13:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC) :I did what I thought best by wiping out the additions. I wasn't sure that if you or another mod or a contributer may feel if the material is not based on canon or the word of the producters, that the material would be there the next day. By wiping it out, I don't have to be responsible for the additions for they don't exist.--Airtram3 13:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC) From LordEdzo 02/06/07 Hi, Charles. I've been away from the site for several days. Today, Memory Alpha says I have a new message waiting for me, but I can't seem to locate it. Just wanted to make sure that if it was from you, I'm aware of it but can't find it. Please resend? Thanks, Edzo In-universe links in RealWorld articles So... I've been under the impression for a while now that having in-universe links in "realworld" articles was a good thing, since it shoves people back in and about the wiki. Now, I know that links to realworld pages from 'in-universe' sections of regular pages is bad, but the other way around seems to make some certain amount of sense to me. That and if we're going to clean it up, it's going to take quite some time and effort. :) -- Sulfur 02:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC) :Originally, I thought so, as well, but Jorg (I think it was Jorg...) made a good point when suggesting we try to remove in-universe links from real world articles because the pages that was linked discusses the subject from an in-universe perspective and in turn doesn't really have anything to do with the subject to which it was linked... or something. Um... Jorg worded it better, sooo... ask him. :) In any case, it appears some discussion must be had regarding this before we start making the changes. --From Andoria with Love 03:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC) That's how I felt when I raised the issue a while back, that the in-universe links really aren't related to the real world articles (even if the names are the same). In addition, I think it encourages people to mix articles in the other direction (i.e. realworld info in the in-universe articles). My 2 cents is that we should keep them totally separate (the exception, of course, is if we're referencing an in-universe topic in the real world article, for example, talking about someone who designed the phaser prop or something like that). -- Renegade54 05:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Re: " Future's End‎; 20:07 . . Shran (Talk | contribs) (removed opinion)" The idea that the gag is subtle is in and of itself "Opinion". When I wrote this today I referenced it outside of the main body of the article because I saw it and it cracked me up. It's a funny bit and it seems absurd to remove that part of the commentary whilst leaving other "opinion" oriented things in. Is there a different heading under which my contribution should be properly placed?– Foravalon 09:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC) :The term "subtle" never struck me as opinionated; that's why I didn't remove it. I guess it could be considered opinion, though, in which case we could just remove that word and it wouldn't harm the rest of the note. There's nothing wrong with including that note within the background section (although the part that says "this probably was" should be changed to "this might have been"). Since this is an encyclopedia, however, opinions (calling something funny, bad, odd, etc.) should be excluded from the notes. Hope that helps. --From Andoria with Love 10:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC) re: Reference template Hi Shran. Please see Forum:Episode reference templates before reverting more of those... Thanks :) -- Cid Highwind 11:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Pre-TNG Timeline *Actually I was the person who posted that timeline on the Hidden Frontier site. Around a year and a half ago. The same thing with my "pre-federation history of warp drive". I made that speculative history up and have posted it on numerous sites. -- Datalore 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC) :*Hrm... not to sound rude, but do you have any proof of this? That would certainly be another matter entirely. In any case, you should also bring this up here, if you haven't already. --From Andoria with Love 18:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Tense Since when is the issue of tense under debate? Or have I missed something? -- Renegade54 01:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC) :It's not; IIRC, it was settled with the agreement to use past tense except when it came to more long-lasting things like star systems, etc. the edit has been reverted, not only because it was wrong but also because it altered more than just the tense. --From Andoria with Love 04:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) :*Actually, having had a look at other articles for cities, states, etc. it appears the preferred tense is present tense. So, I guess Foravalon can re-do the tense if s/he wishes, just so long as s/he doesn't revert the other changes. --From Andoria with Love 04:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC) ::Phew, thank you kindly, reading of Paris in the past tense just makes me cringe whilst visions of that scene from "Deep Impact" dance through my head. Au revoir Paris! -Foravalon 09:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC) :::Regardless, tense has been determined to be generally in past tense. As such, the city articles to which Shran refers should be changed to the past tense. Otherwise, let's just make everything present tense. We can't lean one way with some things, another way with other things, just because they exist now. So, to my mind, that means that everything in-universe is past tense, even if it makes us cringe because we live there, and we're pretty sure it still exists. :) -- (still on vacation...) Sulfur 18:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC) ::I know that this really is not the place to further this discussion but I find many things inaccurate about the above statement. "Determined" by whom? And what exactly is "in general" supposed mean in this context? If there has there been an official survey I am unaware of it. I think you've mistaken the intended humor of my above post for my actual stance on the subject. The current actual existence of any "real life" place or thing, has no bearing on anything being discussed here. I feel no remorse that by the 24th Century my native land of Los Angeles has been obliterated by the great Hermosa Earthquake and is now home to the world's largest coral reef. Big whoop. ::My stance on the subject of tense is that yes, while many MA articles refer to events which have taken place in the vast story of Trek, and would naturally be in the past tense. But a great deal of articles refer to locations, planets, star systems, stellar phenomena, and even institutions which have not, within the Canon of Trek, been met with any demise, destruction, uncreation (see: alternate timelines) or end. Thus from the viewpoint of one within the "Star Trek Universe" it would be inaccurate to imply otherwise. The goal of having a uniform single tense for all of Memory Alpha is an unrealistic and overly simplistic one, it insults our intelligence and our ability to discern and navigate through the subtleties and complexities of language. To wash out the architecture of our words in this grand referential project for the sake of simplicity would not only be inaccurate to the whole but inelegant as well. -Foravalon 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC) :You're right, this isn't the place to discuss this. ;) A discussion on this issue was started a while back in Ten Forward and can now be found here. This discussion should be continued there. --From Andoria with Love 16:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ::To add more fun and confusion it's also being discussed here. -Foravalon 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC) :Oh, great. Nothing quite like holding one discussion on three separate pages. Oh, well, have fun with that. ;) --From Andoria with Love 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)